Palmer v. Hobbs

SUSAN SOTO PALMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN HOBBS, et al., Defendants.

No. C22-5035RSL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 6, 2022

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on a “Motion to Intervene” filed by Jose Trevino (a resident of Granger, Washington), Ismael Campos (a resident of Kennewick Washington), and Alex Ybarra (a State Representative and resident of Quincy, Washington). Dkt. # 57. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit to challenge the redistricting plan for Washington's state legislative districts, alleging that the Washington State Redistricting Commission (“the Commission”) intentionally configured District 15 in a way that cracks apart politically cohesive Latino/Hispanic^[1]populations and placed the district on a non-presidential election year cycle in order to dilute Latino voters' ability to elect candidates of their choice. Plaintiffs assert a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), 52 U.S.C § 10301(a), and request that the Court enjoin defendants from utilizing the existing legislative map and order the implementation and use of a valid state legislative plan that does not dilute, cancel out, or minimize the voting strength of Latino voters in the Yakima Valley.

Plaintiffs named as defendants Steven Hobbs (Washington's Secretary of State), Laurie Jinkins (the Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives), and Andy Billig (the Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate). The claims against Representative Jinkins and Senator Billig were dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an entitlement to relief from either of them. Dkt. # 66 at 4-5. Secretary Hobbs does not have an interest in defending the existing districting plan and has taken no position regarding the merits of plaintiffs' Section 2 claim. The intervenors assert that they are registered voters who intend to vote in future elections and that they have a stake in this litigation. Mr. Trevino falls within District 15 as drawn by the Commission, Mr. Campos falls within District 8 and could find himself in District 15 if new boundaries are drawn, and Representative Ybarra represents District 13, the boundaries of which may shift if plaintiffs' prevail in this case.

A. Intervention as of Right

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the circumstances in which intervention as a matter of right is appropriate:

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

The Ninth Circuit has distilled four elements from Rule 24(a): intervention of right applies when an applicant “(i) timely moves to intervene; (ii) has a significantly protectable interest related to the subject of the action; (iii) may have that interest impaired by the disposition of the action; and (iv) will not be adequately represented by existing parties.” Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, 960 F.3d 603, 620 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argue that intervenors cannot satisfy the first, second, or fourth criteria. “While an applicant seeking to intervene has the burden to show that these four elements are met, the requirements are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass 'n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

(1) Timeliness

Intervenors' motion to intervene was timely filed. The motion was filed a week after it became apparent that none of the named defendants were interested in defending the existing redistricting map, and it had had no adverse impact on the resolution of the then-pending motion for preliminary injunction.

(2) Significant Protectable Interest

A proposed intervenor “has a significant protectable interest in an action if (1) it asserts an interest that is protected under some law, and (2) there is a relationship between its legally protected interest and the plaintiff's claims.” Kalbers v. United States Dep't of Justice, 22 F.4th 816, 827 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “The interest test is not a clear-cut or bright-line rule, because no specific legal or equitable interest need be established. . . . Instead, the ‘interest' test directs courts to make a practical, threshold inquiry and is primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 398 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). “The relationship requirement is met if the resolution of the plaintiff's claims actually will affect the applicant.” Id.

Intervenors Trevino and Campos claim “an interest in ensuring that any changes to the boundaries of [their] districts do not violate their rights to ‘the equal protection of the laws' under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .” Dkt. # 57 at 6. Representative Ybarra claims “a heightened interest in not only the orderly administration of elections, but also in knowing which voters will be included in his district.” Id. All three intervenors claim an interest in the boundaries of the legislative districts in which they find themselves and “in ensuring that Legislative District 15 and its adjoining districts are drawn in a manner that complies with state and federal law.” Id. at 6-7.

As an initial matter, under Washington law, intervenors have no right or protectable interest in any particular redistricting plan or boundary lines. The legislative district map must be redrawn after each decennial census: change is part of the process. Intervenors, in keeping with all other registered voters in the State of Washington, may file a petition with the state Supreme Court to challenge a redistricting plan (RCW 44.05.130), but they have no role to play in the redistricting process. Nor is there any indication that a general preference for a particular boundary or configuration is a legally cognizable interest.

Intervenors do not allege that their right to vote or to be on the ballot will be impacted by this litigation. Nor have they identified any direct and concrete injury that has befallen or is likely to befall them if plaintiffs' Section 2 claim is successful. Rather, they broadly allege that they have an interest in ensuring that any plan that comes out of this litigation complies with the Equal Protection Clause, state law, and federal law. But a generic interest in the government's “proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [the intervenors] than it does the public at large[, ] does not state an Article III case or controversy” (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992)), and it would be premature to litigate a hypothetical constitutional violation (i.e., being subjected to a racial gerrymander through a remedial map established in this action) when no such violative conduct has occurred. With the possible exception of Representative Ybarra (discussed below), intervenors have not identified a significant protectable interest for purposes of intervention under Rule 24(a).

(3) Adequacy of Representation

In addition to the uncognizable interest in legislative district boundaries and the generic interest in ensuring that any new redistricting map complies with the law, Representative Ybarra ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE claims an interest in avoiding delays in the election cycle and in knowing ahead of time which voters will be included in his district. The Court assumes, for purposes of this motion, that these interests are significant enough to give Representative Ybarra standing to pursue relief in this litigation. He cannot, however, show that the existing parties will not adequately represent these interests.

“The most important factor to determine whether a proposed intervenor is adequately represented by a present party to the action is how the intervenor's interest compares with the interests of existing parties. . . . Where the party and the proposed intervenor share the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation applies, and the intervenor can rebut that presumption only with a compelling showing to the contrary. . . .” Perry v. Proposition 8 Off. Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). The arguably protectable interests asserted by Representative Ybarra were ably and successfully urged by Secretary Hobbs in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Concerns regarding delays in the election cycle that might arise if district boundaries were redrawn this spring and the disruption to candidates who were considering a run for office were identified by Secretary Hobbs and played a part in the Court's decision.

Because Representative Ybarra's arguably protectable interests are essentially identical to the arguments that were actually asserted by Secretary Hobbs, Representative Ybarra may defeat the presumption (and evidence) of adequate representation only by making a compelling showing that Secretary Hobbs will abandon or fail to adequately make these arguments in the future. See Arakaki v....